[ LETTER ]

Weapons Amnesty

Published: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 12:09 a.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 12:09 a.m.

I bought my first handgun at the ripe (illegal) age of 16, my second at 18. My elder brother, now deceased, was the proxy buyer. I was raised around firearms correctly, i.e., never assume anything.

I don't own an assault rifle now but have in the past. I owned an 1860 Spencer Repeater, an 1873 "Trapdoor" Springfield, an '03-A3 Springfield, an M1 Garand and an M14. All were proved on battlefields and each of them more deadly than its predecessor by virtue of firepower, i.e., capacity and rate of fire. This is the root of the fear around this style of weapon.

There's an argument to be made for restriction in the manner we already have for full automatic weapons and explosives. They are sequestered under the banner of destructive devices. Those weapons can be had by individuals, but only after an extensive background check and a rather pricey licensing fee. This is the sweet spot we could move toward in curbing the proliferation of this style of weapon. The linchpin is whether we want to demonize current owners of this style of weapon. I hope not.

We could either grandfather or issue amnesty for current owners without any further registration. All the owner would need is the original or certified copy of the receipt with the date of purchase. Keep it with the weapon. The law would apply only to new purchases.

This might calm the public's nervousness over these weapons and possibly, just maybe inconvenience the would-be mass murderer. That's all we can hope for. The evil and disturbed people will always find a way. Think kerosene, fertilizer and Timothy McVeigh.

We can no further prevent their deeds than coax the genie back into the bottle. To stand square to that fact is to feel the sweet blade of truth cleave us to the marrow. Better to suffer that pain than to continue with the flaccid effects of gun bans, buy-backs, smaller magazines and self-flagellation — none of which will ever save a life.

<p>I bought my first handgun at the ripe (illegal) age of 16, my second at 18. My elder brother, now deceased, was the proxy buyer. I was raised around firearms correctly, i.e., never assume anything.</p><p>I don't own an assault rifle now but have in the past. I owned an 1860 Spencer Repeater, an 1873 "Trapdoor" Springfield, an '03-A3 Springfield, an M1 Garand and an M14. All were proved on battlefields and each of them more deadly than its predecessor by virtue of firepower, i.e., capacity and rate of fire. This is the root of the fear around this style of weapon.</p><p>There's an argument to be made for restriction in the manner we already have for full automatic weapons and explosives. They are sequestered under the banner of destructive devices. Those weapons can be had by individuals, but only after an extensive background check and a rather pricey licensing fee. This is the sweet spot we could move toward in curbing the proliferation of this style of weapon. The linchpin is whether we want to demonize current owners of this style of weapon. I hope not.</p><p>We could either grandfather or issue amnesty for current owners without any further registration. All the owner would need is the original or certified copy of the receipt with the date of purchase. Keep it with the weapon. The law would apply only to new purchases.</p><p>This might calm the public's nervousness over these weapons and possibly, just maybe inconvenience the would-be mass murderer. That's all we can hope for. The evil and disturbed people will always find a way. Think kerosene, fertilizer and Timothy McVeigh.</p><p>We can no further prevent their deeds than coax the genie back into the bottle. To stand square to that fact is to feel the sweet blade of truth cleave us to the marrow. Better to suffer that pain than to continue with the flaccid effects of gun bans, buy-backs, smaller magazines and self-flagellation — none of which will ever save a life.</p><p>J.C. COLLIER</p><p>Lakeland</p>